* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Chapter 1: The Market - University of Minnesota
Survey
Document related concepts
Transcript
Lecture #11: Introduction to the New Empirical Industrial Organization (NEIO) modified from: http://spirit.tau.ac.il/public/gandal/lecture11i.pdf What is the old empirical IO? The old empirical IO refers to studies that tried to draw inferences about the relationship between the structure of an industry (in particular, its concentration level) and its profitability. Problems with those studies are that it is hard to measure profitability, industry structure may be endogenous, and there is little connection between empirical work and theory. The NEIO is in many ways a reaction to that empirical tradition. NEIO works “in harmony” with (game) theory. The Structure-Conduct-Performance (SCP) Paradigm: The Old Empirical IO How does industry concentration affect price-cost margins or other similar measures? The “plain vanilla” SCP regression regresses profitability on concentration. The Cournot model of non-cooperative oligopolistic competition in homogeneous product industries relates market structure to performance. It can be shown that shared weighted average markup in an industry is a function of its Herfindahl index and the elasticity of demand. p mci i p si where HHI si2 i HHI This implies: ln(PCM) = 0 + 1 ln(HHI) + 2 ln() + (1) where PCM = the share weighted average firm markup. Using cross section data, (1) could be estimated and a test for Cournot would be 0 = 0, 1 = 1, and 2 = -1. In practice, regressions of the following form were performed: ln(PCM) = 0 + 1 C4 + (2) where C4 was the share of the four largest firms in the industry. What are the problems with these regressions? Data: Price cost margins are not available, hence accounting returns on assets (as well as census data on manufacturer margins) were often used. Data: Additional RHS variables such as the elasticity of demand are hard to measure for many industries. Data: Market definitions were problematic. (When using a single industry more thought can be put into the issue.) Simultaneity: Both margins and concentration are endogenous. Demsetz (J. Law and Econ., 1973) noted that some firms have a cost advantage, leading to a large share and high profits. Hence, there could be a correlation between C4 and profits. The New Empirical Industrial Organization (NEIO) Paradigm: The New Empirical IO The NEIO studies build on the econometric progress made by SCP paradigm, use economic theory, describe techniques for estimating the degree of competitiveness in an industry, use bare bones prices and quantities, and do not rely on cost or profit data, typically assume that the firms are behaving as if they are Bertrand competition, use comparative statics of equilibria to draw inferences about profits and costs, and focus mainly on a single industry in order to deal better with product heterogeneity, institutional details, etc. Bresnahan (Economic Letters, 1982): The Oligopoly Solution Concept is Identified This paper and others (e.g., A. Nevo, “Identification of the Oligopoly Solution Concept in a Differentiated Products Industry,” Economics Letters, 1998, 391-395) show that the oligopoly solution concept can be identified econometrically. Demand: MC: Q = 0 + 1 P + 2 Y MC = 0 + 1 Q + 2 W + + (1) (2) where Y and W are exogenous. FOC for a PC firm: FOC for a monopoly: P/Q) MC = P ( MR is: P) MC = P + Q/1 ( MR is: P + Q * FOC for the oligopolistic firm: MC = (1 - ) P + (P + Q/1) where = 0 if the industry is competitive Demand: (1) MC: (2) FOC: Q = 0 + 1 P + 2 Y + MC = 0 + 1 Q + 2 W + MC = (1 - ) P + (P + Q/1) Substituting FOC into (2), the supply relationship is: (1 - ) P + (P + Q/1) = 0 + 1 Q + 2 W + P = (- Q/1 ) + 1 Q + 0 + 2 W + (3) Since both (1) and (3) have one endogenous variable and since there is one excluded exogenous variable from each equation, both equations are identified. But, are we estimating P = MC (competitive) or MR = MC (monopoly)? Rewrite (3) as: P = (1 - /1) Q + 0 + 2 W + We can obtain a coefficient for (1 - /1) since (3) is identified and we can get 1 by estimating (1). In the figure, E1 could either be an equilibrium for a monopolist with marginal cost MCM, or for a perfectly competitive industry with cost MCC. MCC Increase Y to shift the demand curve out to D2 and both the monopolistic and competitive equilibria move to E2. E2 E1 MCM Unless we know marginal costs, we cannot distinguish between competitive or monopoly (nor anything in between). MR1 MR2 D1 D2 The solution to the identification problem MC: MC = 0 + 1 Q + 2 W + (2) Let demand be: Q = 0 + 1 P + 2 Y + 3 P Z + 4 Z+ where Z is another exogenous variable. The key is that Z enters interactively with P, so that changes in P and Z both rotate and vertically shift demand. (Note: Z might be the price of a substitute good, which makes the interaction term intuitive.) Given the new demand, the marginal revenue for a monopolist, (P + Q * P/Q), is no longer P + Q/1. It is now: P + Q / (1 + 3 Z). Thus, the oligopolistic firm’s FOC becomes MC = (1 - ) P + [P + Q / (1 + 3 Z)] Substituting FOC into (2), the supply relationship becomes: Demand: Q = 0 + 1 P + 2 Y + 3 P Z + 4 Z + Supply Relation: ` P = - [Q / (1 + 3 Z)] + 1 Q + 0 + 2 W + - Q* + 1 Q + 0 + 2 W + Since the demand is still identified, we can estimate 1 and 3. Thus, we can identify both and 1 in the supply relation. Note 1: This result can be generalized beyond linear functions. Note 2: There are other assumptions that can generate identification. e.g. Marginal cost that does not vary with quantity (1 = Graphically, an exogenous change in the price of the substitute rotates the demand curve around E1. If there is perfect competition, this will have no effect on the equilibrium price and it will stay at the point associated with E1. But, if there is monopoly power, the equilibrium will change to E3. MCC E1 E2 MR1 MCM MR2 D1 D2 Why do we care about the structural model? We want to estimate parameters or effects not directly observed in the data (e.g., returns to scale, elasticity of demand). We want to perform welfare analysis (e.g., measure welfare gains due to entry or welfare losses due to market power). We want to simulate changes in the equilibrium (e.g., impact of mergers). We want to compare relative predictive performance of competing theories.